So one shouldn't describe the GPL as dependent on copyright, Instead, it is a consequence of copyright.

Say, rather, that it's a consequence of the abuse of copyright, as perpetrated by the "content industries" and their march to perpetual ownership. Creative Commons is another such consequence. But it's still accurate to describe the GPL as dependent on copyright, Steve. One thing doesn't rule out the other.

So one shouldn't describe the GPL as dependent on copyright, Instead, it is a consequence of copyright.

Say, rather, that it's a consequence of the abuse of copyright, as perpetrated by the "content industries" and their march to perpetual ownership. Creative Commons is another such consequence. But it's still accurate to describe the GPL as dependent on copyright, Steve. One thing doesn't rule out the other.

The GPL is not aconsequence of copyright, except insofar as without copyright there would be no way to enforce the terms of the license. It is a license that was written because Richard Stallman wanted to fix some bugs in a printer driver. :)

Without copyright, he still wouldn't have been able to fix the bugs (source would have been just as closed), he just wouldn't have been able to put any limitations on the uses that others had for his code.

CC came about because people were trying to use the GPL for documentation. It was never meant for that, so a new set of licenses were created by people who were more familiar with those works than software. :) Wikipedia was originally licensed unDer the GPL, I think...

This is a bizarre thread. It ultimately is not about Dotcom or MU, its about copyright. Some here fully support downloading copyright digital media. Afterall, it's been going on for ages, we have all had a free ride, now we are miffed because we may be affected. Its not a "real" physical product, so it's ok. Thats rubbish. It has never been a physical product, it has merely been transported to you on a physical media product. It is wrong, it is theft in the general sense, as you have obtained something that has a price, that you did not pay for. You are just trying to justify something that you know is wrong, that you know was never an issue, and now its most annoyng as you may be caught, or your access to illegal material may be compromised.

I'm not unfamiliar with filesharing, but you cannot look at this issue in any way and justify that its ok.

I also see the C word being mentioned (censorship). Thats also rubbish, used merely for sensationalising the attention now given to blocking websites used for illegal activity. I also see that Netherlands are going to force ISP's to block filesharing websites, well, on first looks, thats an ideal solution. Why try to track illegal downloaders, get internet illiterate parents and grandparents with potentilal liability for fines, when you can get get a handful of ISP's to block a handful of websites?

Again thats censorship; again, rubbish. Or, get censorship removed from everything???? Or perhaps work towards removing copyright from statutes, and thats for everything. Or is it a case of I believe in the relevance of copyright and censorship, but not when it affects me getting me movies, me songs, me games, and me software????

tdgeek: This is a bizarre thread. It ultimately is not about Dotcom or MU, its about copyright. Some here fully support downloading copyright digital media. Afterall, it's been going on for ages, we have all had a free ride, now we are miffed because we may be affected. Its not a "real" physical product, so it's ok. Thats rubbish. It has never been a physical product, it has merely been transported to you on a physical media product. It is wrong, it is theft in the general sense, as you have obtained something that has a price, that you did not pay for. You are just trying to justify something that you know is wrong, that you know was never an issue, and now its most annoyng as you may be caught, or your access to illegal material may be compromised.

(edit)

**sigh**

its not theft.. Not in the remotest sense. Its nearly the complete opposite. Copy is to add, theft is to take away. When you copy a song, you do not deprive the owner of possession. Now if you sell that copy to someone who was going to buy a copy from the true owner, then there is a legitimate civil case. If someone downloads it, watches it & never was going to buy it, where is the right of claim for loss?

tdgeek: This is a bizarre thread. It ultimately is not about Dotcom or MU, its about copyright. Some here fully support downloading copyright digital media. Afterall, it's been going on for ages, we have all had a free ride, now we are miffed because we may be affected. Its not a "real" physical product, so it's ok. Thats rubbish. It has never been a physical product, it has merely been transported to you on a physical media product. It is wrong, it is theft in the general sense, as you have obtained something that has a price, that you did not pay for. You are just trying to justify something that you know is wrong, that you know was never an issue, and now its most annoyng as you may be caught, or your access to illegal material may be compromised.

(edit)

**sigh**

its not theft.. Not in the remotest sense. Its nearly the complete opposite. Copy is to add, theft is to take away. When you copy a song, you do not deprive the owner of possession. Now if you sell that copy to someone who was going to buy a copy from the true owner, then there is a legitimate civil case. If someone downloads it, watches it never was going to buy it, where is the right of claim for loss?

Double sigh. I said in the general sense, but take that how you like. Theft is to take away, agreed. You took away the money that was due for the value of the product. If you took away a boxed DVD of a movie and didnt pay, thats theft. There is a statute to cover that, the Crimes Act. If you took that item by illegally downloading it, its the same. You took away the product, and didn't pay for it, the statute is the Copyright Act. If you steal cars, you steal the one you want. So if you illegally download a movie that you don't want, thats ok?? Why download it then? Because you want it but don't want to pay for it.

There are many side issues that are more than relevant. The restrictions mentioned here on format shifting, thats wrong. The ridiculous amounts rightholders claim they lost, that's pathetic. But at the end of the day, you took something that others pay for. Whether it's a chocolate bar or a download, that is not relevant.

It is not bizarre in the slightest. You simply do not understand what is being said, as is adequately summarized by your comments below:

After all, it's been going on for ages, we have all had a free ride, now we are miffed because we may be affected.

No.

Its not a "real" physical product, so it's ok.

No.

And many more No's.

You are inventing a weaker argument than the one in debate, and then objecting to this weaker argument. And I do not think you realize that this is what you are doing:

Thats rubbish. It has never been a physical product, it has merely been transported to you on a physical media product.

Copyright is an aberration in our history. I have no doubt that future generations will look back on this period in the same way we look back on the Dark Ages with it's Church enforced control of knowledge.

We - as humans - got to the position we hold by doing precisely what the 'pirates' are doing now. It brought us out of Africa and took us to the Moon. And, if megalomaniacs can be ousted, it will take us to the stars.

Copyright will not.

It is wrong, it is theft in the general sense, as you have obtained something that has a price, that you did not pay for. You are just trying to justify something that you know is wrong, that you know was never an issue, and now its most annoyng as you may be caught, or your access to illegal material may be compromised.

No.

It is not theft any more than it is theft to take a picture of the Mona Lisa.

There is a hard truth that you need to face:

People do not value copyright. And they never will. And that is Good.

You are pitting 300 years of law against 3 million years of evolution. It is absurd.

There is no moral imperative to not share knowledge, stories, music. There is no financial benefit to the vast majority in doing so.

Why would 6 Billion People stop doing what has been done for 3 million years to make 'you' rich? So they can watch a film? IT IS ABSURD. And they are not doing it.

I'm not unfamiliar with filesharing, but you cannot look at this issue in any way and justify that its ok.

And that is why you will neither agree with my point of view nor understand it. I do not think it will convince you nor impress you. I do not think that is possible - you have an emotional attachment to your ideology.

I am simply articulating the feelings of many, and bolstering it with some historical relevance.

Onward:

I also see the C word being mentioned (censorship). Thats also rubbish, used merely for sensationalising the attention now given to blocking websites used for illegal activity.

No, there is some merit to it.

Copyright is famously used by the Church Of Scientology to censor critics of their practices. And they are far from unique. Universities have also been silenced about faults in devices or software using the same laws.

As regards to sharing a song - see my above about culture and human history.

Again thats censorship; again, rubbish. Or, get censorship removed from everything???? Or perhaps work towards removing copyright from statutes, and thats for everything. Or is it a case of I believe in the relevance of copyright and censorship, but not when it affects me getting me movies, me songs, me games, and me software????

Its more like the Gravy Train is dead, and now they have to come up with a new business model.

Why do you support Copyright so strongly? It will not help your grandmother live out her final years in comfort, nor cure your child of a deadly virus. It will not give your children a nice world to live in nor will it grow them food to eat. It will not educate them or inspire them.

tdgeek: This is a bizarre thread. It ultimately is not about Dotcom or MU, its about copyright. Some here fully support downloading copyright digital media. Afterall, it's been going on for ages, we have all had a free ride, now we are miffed because we may be affected. Its not a "real" physical product, so it's ok. Thats rubbish. It has never been a physical product, it has merely been transported to you on a physical media product. It is wrong, it is theft in the general sense, as you have obtained something that has a price, that you did not pay for. You are just trying to justify something that you know is wrong, that you know was never an issue, and now its most annoyng as you may be caught, or your access to illegal material may be compromised.

(edit)

**sigh**

its not theft.. Not in the remotest sense. Its nearly the complete opposite. Copy is to add, theft is to take away. When you copy a song, you do not deprive the owner of possession. Now if you sell that copy to someone who was going to buy a copy from the true owner, then there is a legitimate civil case. If someone downloads it, watches it & never was going to buy it, where is the right of claim for loss?

One of the things I find interesting is the way copyright legislation is worded. Generally speaking, it doesn't actually give any special powers to the "rightsholder" but restricts other people from doing things that they might ordinarily do. Which is to reinforce Brendan's point that this is the way human culture has evolved - by borrowing, copying, imitating, absorbing and reusing what has gone before.

One of the fallacies about filesharing is that it is only used for copyright infringement. This is not true as many companies now publish their software updates in torrents, just as there were/are a number of legitimate users of Megaupload using the convenience for distributing large files. The Media7 programme I referred to above has some comments from Simon Grigg about how he legitimately used MU to distribute music files during and post-production.

Another fallacy that tdgeek (and others, to be fair) has fallen for is that items somehow have an intrinsic value and that you are robbing someone by not paying them. While there may be a moral argument around rewarding artistic achievement, the item itself has no value other than that granted by the market place. Prices have been kept artificially high for years by the content industry because they controlled the means of distribution. Now, they don't. Value has an inverse relationship to scarcity - when you can make unlimited numbers of exact copies of an item for next to no cost, the price per item that is attainable becomes negligible.

Mike Masnick at Techdirt has been exploring this for years. He came up with a formula, based on what Trent Reznor was doing with Nine Inch Nails, which is CwF + RtB = $$$ (Connect with Fans plus Reason to Buy equals Revenue). Check out his site for examples of people doing just that. He's also just released a report called "The Sky is Rising" that looks at how the music and movie industries are doing better than ever despite all the "piracy".

Other studies have shown that filesharers generally spend 2-3 times more one legitimate media purchases than non-filesharers. Neil Young is talking about piracy being the new radioThe only industry area that is suffering is the area reliant on making and shipping plastic disks. If they don't reinvent their business model, they'll go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers when automobiles became mainstream.

I fully understand your argument, if you wish to portray that I live in the dark ages, and do not understand, in order to minimise my input, that's fine. It is quite clear what illegal activities you support and why.

And a world without copyright laws and censorship laws would be most interesting. Off course that would have to include all goods and services, these are called patents, unless you prefer to exclude these facets of life that adversely affect you?

I support copyright, patents, as and when required to allow the creator of anything physical or non physical to recover the costs of creation and to be rewarded for their efforts. There are flaws in copyright/patents, but the reasoning is sound. I support censorship as and when required to protect the general populous from unsavoury content, or access to illegal activities.

Jaywalking is also illegal. It's still not theft, and neither is copyright infringement. .

Agreed . You seem to have an issue with the word theft. It has bad connotations.

No, I have an issue with misusing language to promote a purely partisan agenda, which the content industry has been doing for some years by equating infringement with stealing. You are also doing this by saying "it has bad connotations", intimating that I find the word itself distasteful. In fact, it is entirely the wrong term and brings with it a load of misconceptions that mean the debate cannot be had. It's like calling a penguin a badger and then insisting that badgers live in the Antarctic.

At least we agree tbat if you are caught jaywalking, and penalised, you would have no issue with also being penalised for copyright infringement as we agree both are illegal.

As the law stands you are correct. However, I would also submit that current copyright law is bad law, and getting worse, and that it needs a global overhaul to rebalance the interests of both content porducers and content consumers (hate the term, but it is the right one). Bad law means people ignore it. Good law is law that people find sensible and reasonable.